5th July 2002 Dear Sir, RE : SECTION 3 OF THE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (ANIMALS) RULES 1) In your reply dated 26th February 2002, you raised legitimate concerns regarding our proposal to allow cats in HDB apartments. We write now to address these concerns. a) That the number of cat-related complaints will increase. We understand that the HDB’s rationale for banning the ownership of cats in flats is to prevent nuisance problems due to irresponsible pet ownership. We wish to point out that a registration scheme for cat owners will not add to the nuisance-related workload of HDB officers. On the contrary, we believe that the HDB will have fewer complaints to deal with. Fears of indeterminate complaints are unfounded as the fundamental basis of the registration scheme is “responsible ownership” a concept which can be rigorously defined and enforced. A registration scheme makes administrative sense as it allows the HDB to prevent cat-nuisance problems, and not just to deal with complaints after the fact. A registration scheme may be easily created within the existing legal framework. Certain provisions could be appended to the current law to state that only HDB dwellers who comply with prescribed standards be allowed to keep cats in their flats. Strong action would be taken against people who breach these standards. Alternatively, the prohibition on cats in flats can be removed. Specifically, HDB could consider removing the word “cat” from Section 3 of the Housing and Development (Animals) Rules. In other words, the Act is silent on the keeping of cats as pets as it is on all other pets. The keeping of pets will then be subject to HDB’s internal guidelines. b) Cat owners may not be prepared to comply with the rules It is illogical to argue that since “cat owners may not be prepared to comply with the proposed conditions and would prefer to live with the risk of an unregistered pet” the HDB should therefore unilaterally make the decision for all flat-owners by imposing a blanket ban on all cat-ownership, regardless of how responsible they are. By maintaining this stand, the HDB is depriving people of the chance to comply and become legitimate owners of a registered pet. As a result, owners presently have every incentive not to keep their cats in a responsible manner. Specifically, it would make sense for them not confine their cats indoors nor sterilize them, to avoid the accusation that they are contravening a law which could result in them losing their flat. The current law thus contributes to stray cat over-population as cats are kept irresponsibly and loosely. In addition when owners are told to remove their cats by the HDB, they have no choice but to abandon the cats on the streets as they cannot bear to surrender the cats to the authorities where they will most certainly be put down. Singapore has provided affordable public housing that is the envy of the world. However the emphasis has always been on providing for the physical needs of residents without providing for their psychological and emotional needs. Pet ownership can play an important role as it relieves stress, increases self-esteem and is beneficial to health and well-being. This is especially relevant in an aging society. c) HDB’s inability to enforce the situation The proposed registration scheme should not be viewed as creating new problems, but an attempt to address an existing problem, that of stray-cat over-population. The practical reality is that despite the existing rule against cat-ownership, there are many residents who presently keep cats, responsibly or otherwise. Many of them are very responsible cat owners who are unaware of the HDB ruling against the keeping of cats in flats. We are convinced that, given the opportunity, responsible cat owners will choose to register, rather than live in fear of the HDB coming to their door at any time. This will free up HDB’s limited resources to deal only with irresponsible owners. In the present form it would be virtually impossible for HDB to enforce the existing law against everyone contravening it. CWS reiterates its commitment to provide volunteers to help with registration and the verification process in their own estates, similar to what the Resident’s Committee does. d) Pilot project proposal deemed ineffective CWS is open to any other suggestions that the HDB and your Ministry might have to assess our proposal. 2) An in-principle agreement on the part of HDB to some of the proposals that have been tabled would be a useful first step towards redressing some of the real dilemmas that confront HDB dwellers who are sincere about being responsible pet owners. Further details of implementation can then be worked out by the various parties involved. 3) We have kept in mind your Ministry’s and HDB’s constraints and concerns, and have striven to recommend changes that will be beneficial in the long term for the Singapore public without making it harder for the authorities to carry out their responsibilities and duties. We are therefore most willing to meet up with you to discuss this matter further and await your considered response. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Dr Lynn Yeo President, Cat Welfare Society